Super-spreader Situations

Status
Not open for further replies.
The one sentence from the Sturgis study is what made me interested: “In counties with the largest relative inflow to the event, the per 1,000 case rate increased by 10.7 percent after 24 days following the onset of Sturgis Pre-Rally Events,”. That's alarming without even considering their modelling scheme.
 
I am going to be interested in seeing the stats on amount of Covid spread caused by colleges opening. At my university alone (UNC) there was about 1000 cases during the first 3 weeks students were on campus. Then the dorms were closed and the students sent home. What a super super spreader event.
 
Thanks for the thoughts on our possible backyard wedding everyone.

Our power is out right now due to precautions regarding the Northern California fires. Higher atmospheric smoke seems to have reduced the heat wave temperatures locally so something to root for.
 
The Sturgis numbers are not believable. US News & World Report took this from the study:
[FONT=&quot]"Counties with the highest numbers of rally attendees had roughly a 7-12% increase in cases".
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
In the MarketWatch story I read, it said:
[FONT=&quot]“Adding the number of new cases due to the Rally in South Dakota estimated by synthetic control (3.6 per 1,000 population, scaled by the South Dakota population of approximately 858,000) brings the total number of cases to 266,796 or 19 percent of 1.4 million new cases of COVID-19 in the United States between August 2nd 2020 and September 2nd 2020,” said the report."
[/FONT]​
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So it was 19% of all US cases in that time frame, but only a 7-12% increase in the counties that sent the most attendees? That doesn't add up.

I suspect if someone who caught it at Sturgis went to Chicago, they attribute all Chicago cases after that to this exposure. Or something like that.

[/FONT]​
 
No, they didn’t attribute all new cases to Sturgis. Another article explained that they analyzed differences in trajectories.
They then compared the trajectory of cases in counties with many Sturgis attendees, such as Clark County, Nevada, and Maricopa County, Arizona, to those with previously similar case trajectories that had few residents who traveled to Sturgis. This allowed the researchers to estimate the number of new cases resulting from exposure to the coronavirus during the rally — including cases caused by secondary transmission after attendees returned home. Extrapolating to rallygoers nationwide gives the figure of more than 260,000 new coronavirus cases caused by the Sturgis gathering.
.....
The new study estimates that the rally increased the case rate in South Dakota by between 3.6 and 3.9 per 1,000 people — or a total of more than 3,000 cases across the state as a whole.
Click to expand...
I agree that 260,000 seems extremely high. But community spread of several 10,000s would be quite believable. Heck, that Biogen conference was ultimately linked to 20,000 cases over many months, but that was traced through a unique genetic variant.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/coronavirus-superspreader-sturgis-motorcycle-rally
 
Last edited:
This is why we have problems with the news. The above discussion is a great example. The article's source is IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Their research has an inherent bias. Just because they are "nonprofit research," it doesn't make them unbiased. One only need look at the titles of their papers (available from their homepage) to get an idea.

And there's nothing wrong with them being biased! That's not evil either. It is right there in their name: Labor. They'll have a bias towards labor, which in turn leans them politically one way. All "think-tanks" have a mission, that's fine.

What we used to get from the news is an appreciation of these sources, and also a weighing against a different source with a different bias. No more.
 
Sturgis was a really really stupid thing to do. Probably not the cycling but definitely the clustering in large groups after cycling.
 
What I find amusing is that we've switched from talking about Covid-19 death, to talking daily about # of positive cases.

While I'm not completely against having that information, our current governor of NJ is barely letting things open. Well, this past Friday he finally did open up indoor dining at 25% capacity and gyms at the same level.
Currently (as of 9/7 or so), there are total 389 people hospitalized in NJ that have the virus and need to be in the hospital, out of 9,100,000+ people that live in the state.

US numbers below for brevity.
From looking at the number of cases compared to the number of tests performed, it looks like there's a 6% chance of getting Covid-19.
From looking at the number of deaths compared to the population, there's 0.0575% chance of dying from this virus.

I do agree that almost 190,000 people passing away from it in such a short window is a terrible thing, but I think about it this way. Some mutual funds have a higher fee than 1%, and the virus has about 95% chance of killing someone ... currently.

PS: It may or may not be important to note that I had a very dear loved one pass away in April due to complications from Covid-19 and other underlying conditions.

I wish everyone the best of health and wealth!
 
myself said:
What I find amusing is that we've switched from talking about Covid-19 death, to talking daily about # of positive cases.
...
Click to expand...

My focus is on the per capita cases in our area and positivity rate too. Getting Covid can be a life changing event for any of us. I don't want to look back and have to say "if only I'd been more careful". Regarding deaths, I think that is a number harder to fudge so it is a good indicator of where we are at as a country.

Yesterday we were forced out to forage a bit for food because of a power shutdown. We found instances where businesses were trying to do the right thing but their setup was really poorly done. The only thing that seemed like it was working was drivethru's for coffee or for burgers.
 
Don't quit your day job if you're thinking to be a statistician on the side.
myself said:
US numbers below for brevity.
From looking at the number of cases compared to the number of tests performed, it looks like there's a 6% chance of getting Covid-19.
Click to expand...
No, tests do not directly relate to the chance of getting this virus. They aren't given randomly.
From looking at the number of deaths compared to the population, there's 0.0575% chance of dying from this virus.
Click to expand...
No, that's the % of people who have died so far in this country at this point in time. It does not reflect your chance of dying.

I do agree that almost 190,000 people passing away from it in such a short window is a terrible thing, but I think about it this way. Some mutual funds have a higher fee than 1%, and the virus has about 95% chance of killing someone ... currently.
Click to expand...
Huh? Comparing the chance of catching covid with MF fees? That's comparing apples to ducks. Makes zero sense.

And how did the chance of the virus killing someone jump to 95%? I think you meant to say something else.
PS: It may or may not be important to note that I had a very dear loved one pass away in April due to complications from Covid-19 and other underlying conditions.

I wish everyone the best of health and wealth!
Click to expand...
Now that's something I agree with! Sorry for your loss, and to everyone that has lost someone.
 
Gumby said:
Also consider how to handle the food preparation and service. While fomite transmission appears to be a smaller concern than once thought, having a bunch of people hovering over a buffet table and handling the same serving utensils may not be the best way. Maybe one person is the server with the big spoon. Sort of like a military chow line.
Click to expand...



Just do catered individual things like Japanese bento ?
 
Gumby said:
Also consider how to handle the food preparation and service. While fomite transmission appears to be a smaller concern than once thought, having a bunch of people hovering over a buffet table and handling the same serving utensils may not be the best way. Maybe one person is the server with the big spoon. Sort of like a military chow line.
Click to expand...

It’s a wedding. The kids should go ahead and get married, and immediate family could attend as witnesses in a safe way. But there doesn’t have to be a reception. That part could be postponed. It would be far safer not to have any meal - spend longer, eat together, mask removal, bathrooms, etc. Sure it would seem disappointing but these are extraordinary times. You have to think about priorities.

I just think when food and/or alcohol gets into the picture people want to sit down together, socialize face to face, especially if they haven’t seen each other for a while. Distancing becomes difficult. I suspect that’s how many family gatherings get into trouble.
 
Last edited:
audreyh1 said:
It’s a wedding. The kids should go ahead and get married, and immediate family could attend as witnesses in a safe way. But there doesn’t have to be a reception. That part could be postponed.
Click to expand...
It will be more fun anyway. Bonus: if the marriage doesn't work out, you aren't out the money. After 1 yr, plenty of marriages are in trouble and the reception will be skipped.
 
JoeWras said:
It will be more fun anyway. Bonus: if the marriage doesn't work out, you aren't out the money. After 1 yr, plenty of marriages are in trouble and the reception will be skipped.
Click to expand...

DW and I got married fairly late in life in a small private ceremony, and we had our reception on our first anniversary. Friends came in from all over the country. It was big and wonderful. We did it mainly so that we could enjoy the big party as much as our guests, and we certainly did!
 
My parents eloped. There was a justice of the peace, matron of honor and best man, who were mom’s first cousin and her husband, who was my dad’s lifelong best friend. They were married and had introduced y parents to one another. The reception was dinner at a restaurant androgen they went to a Russian River cabin for the honeymoon.
 
Talking to DS last night they want to have the very small wedding at an Airbnb in another city. It will be outside and they are designing it themselves.

So we have expressed our main safety concerns and it is now up to them. I'm glad we don't have to be responsible for getting things set up.
 
audreyh1 said:
It’s a wedding. The kids should go ahead and get married, and immediate family could attend as witnesses in a safe way. But there doesn’t have to be a reception. That part could be postponed. It would be far safer not to have any meal - spend longer, eat together, mask removal, bathrooms, etc. Sure it would seem disappointing but these are extraordinary times. You have to think about priorities.

I just think when food and/or alcohol gets into the picture people want to sit down together, socialize face to face, especially if they haven’t seen each other for a while. Distancing becomes difficult. I suspect that’s how many family gatherings get into trouble.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. And I had my wedding postponed by a hurricane - at the last minute (monday before the saturday wedding, in late october.... a total fluke). Days after the storm, I was picking up displaced tile shingles from all over our yard, patching a window, no power, no nothing...instead of picking up my dress... So I get it...I get the whole "damn, but my wedding...." thing more than most.

But the venue needed months to repair damage, we were heading into the holidays, a few folks needed to re-arrange travel, we needed to move the honeymoon, etc. We moved the whole thing out several months.

I can't imagine, had we postponed due to Covid, that I'd be like "well let's just go ahead now with a small outdoor" because...no.
 
Rianne said:
Maybe the University of Illinois will succeed? The super-spreader students who tested positive and partied were caught and disciplined. The infection rate has gone down. I'm hoping this works, I think we'll be the first!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/health/university-illinois-covid.html
Click to expand...

First point: open the article to see the XKCD cartoon, and its poke at nerds. Great stuff!

Second point: the gist of this is that young people here who tested positive continued to interact with others, willfully and insolently.

This affirms my thoughts to not trust anyone under 40 when it comes to interactions with regard to COVID risk.
 
JoeWras said:
First point: open the article to see the XKCD cartoon, and its poke at nerds. Great stuff!

Second point: the gist of this is that young people here who tested positive continued to interact with others, willfully and insolently.

This affirms my thoughts to not trust anyone under 40 when it comes to interactions with regard to COVID risk.
Click to expand...

I am sure there are some younger people who take Covid seriously and follow all the rules, but how do you know who they are? I have young members of my own family who tell us they are wearing masks, social distancing, etc sounds great but then if you listen closely to what they say you find out they have been going out to parties, hanging out with friends, etc. People just don't tell the truth about their actions relating to Covid.
 
Rianne said:
Maybe the University of Illinois will succeed? The super-spreader students who tested positive and partied were caught and disciplined. The infection rate has gone down. I'm hoping this works, I think we'll be the first!


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/health/university-illinois-covid.html
Click to expand...

That's my alma mater.
I hope they succeed.

Modeling didn't account for people who chose not to self-quarantine even after knowing that they tested positive. Why does that not surprise me?

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Study on 1 person who infected 32-52 in one meeting
Replies
0
Views
554
Bongleur
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom